Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
(April 16th, 2013, 05:07)Jkaen Wrote: Zak why target Q with your role blocking, you made no mention of finding him suspicious before
See above. I feel he is your most likely scum buddy. And if anyone should get caught, you want it to be him, because his role-blocking ability makes you look innocent.
So, have you decided what your tracking result is going to be?
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
But zak you already know what my tracking result is! - no result
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Just to summarize the three perhaps most important points.
Q: Who did Mattimeo avoid targeting?
A: Jkaen
Q: Who stood to benefit from Lewwyn dying on N1?
A: Jkaen
Q: Who stood to benefit from Gazglum being blocked on N1?
A: Jkaen
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
Also if I was going to fake a tracker result then there are far less risky ways of doing it than guessing you were passive, I could easily have scanned somebody who already claimed a passive to 'confirm' it
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
(April 16th, 2013, 03:17)zakalwe Wrote: (April 16th, 2013, 01:49)Jkaen Wrote: Right now the only way my night 2 makes sense to me is if:
a) Zak is lying, hence scum
b) We have a scum roleblocker, and I think the simplist conclusion of who that would be is the person who has already admitted to some blocking powers, i.e. zak
We already know there is a scum roleblocker, since Gazglum was blocked on night 1. So why did you include a) as an option here?
Care to answer this, Jkaen? "Maybe there's a scum roleblocker?" Did you think that you weren't supposed to know for certain?
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
(April 16th, 2013, 05:58)Jkaen Wrote: Also if I was going to fake a tracker result then there are far less risky ways of doing it than guessing you were passive, I could easily have scanned somebody who already claimed a passive to 'confirm' it
There was no risk, because you would just claim you were blocked, as the fallback. But there was a reward, in the form of increased credibility. And you made a deliberate grab for that.
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
Also, you may have visited me for real, doing something else. Your real role could be anything.
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
(April 16th, 2013, 06:00)zakalwe Wrote: (April 16th, 2013, 03:17)zakalwe Wrote: (April 16th, 2013, 01:49)Jkaen Wrote: Right now the only way my night 2 makes sense to me is if:
a) Zak is lying, hence scum
b) We have a scum roleblocker, and I think the simplist conclusion of who that would be is the person who has already admitted to some blocking powers, i.e. zak
We already know there is a scum roleblocker, since Gazglum was blocked on night 1. So why did you include a) as an option here?
Care to answer this, Jkaen? "Maybe there's a scum roleblocker?" Did you think that you weren't supposed to know for certain?
Ok, let me rephrase option b. "We have a scum roleblocker, who is now blocking me"
There is a possibility that the scum roleblocker chose somebody else to block night 2 making case a) a viable option
Posts: 7,902
Threads: 13
Joined: Aug 2006
We KNOW that there is a scum roleblocker, Jkaen. Gazglum was blocked, and nobody has claimed to do so. You don't have to pretend that it's just a possibility.
Are you now saying it's unlikely that the scum roleblocker would target you on N2? Why would he target someone else, do you think?
If you know what I mean.
Posts: 5,157
Threads: 37
Joined: Jan 2011
No zak, I am saying the possibility exists, surely you have to admit that.
I think its far more likely that you have just been blocking me however
|